What these coded goods comprise is likely obvious. Feminine-coded goods and services are attention, admiration, sympathy, sex, children, and various types of nurture. The perks and privileges that are masculine-coded are power, prestige, reputation, money and status. Neither women that supply nor men that demand the relevant things will face any negative enforcement action from misogynists—rather, they will be rewarded by the system. He who seizes what she is supposed to give, even if she doesn’t, will be exonerated (Ms Manne calls this “himpathy”). She who doesn’t supply feminine-encoded things, or who takes masculine coded things away from dominant men, will be punished (“herasure”).
While there may be something to it, I would argue that everyone has expectations and even demands of everyone they have to deal with. It's not as easy as framing it as only perks and privileges on the male side, and only having to provide services on the female side.
Like, sure, husbands expect, say, attention and sympathy and whatnot from their wives, but can you even think of any family you know of where there's not at least an equal and opposite demand from the wife for the exact same things? I mean, according to polls not getting enough attention the #1 reason for women to cheat. Seems to me like the expectation is there.
I would also offer the unqualified opinion that whenever two people have to deal with each other for any significant amount of time, well, people tend to try to get as much as they can and take it for granted. Regardless of gender. Like, my current team lead is male too, but he seems to expect me to answer to emails a lot faster than HE does. If he answers after two hours it's ok, if I answer after half an hour because I was on lunch break, it's reason to complain to HR.
So what I'm trying to say is: to some extent you just get treated as you allow yourself to be treated. The only Earth the meek will inherit is three feet wide by six feet deep.
Navel gazing about the subtle logic of it all will not get you nearly as far as just speaking up. Is all I'm saying.
As a side note, I haven't read the book and can't pass a more substantive judgment, but I'm wary of any work that just invents words for no apparently good reason. There's a reason why that kind of thing is on the crackpot index.
Like, seriously, "himpathy"? "Herasure"? WTH?